Welcome Guest. Please login or register.The column on the left includes the "Best of NumisWiki" menu.If you are new to collecting, start with Ancient Coin Collecting 101.All blue text is linked. Keep clicking to endlessly explore.Welcome Guest. Please login or register.The column on the left includes the "Best of NumisWiki" menu.All blue text is linked. Keep clicking to endlessly explore.If you have written a numismatic article, please add it to NumisWiki.

By Ed Hargreaves

The
image we currently have of Alexander the Great is wholly influenced by
Hellenistic and Roman representations; therefore they are the best
suited periods for the study of Alexander. Alexander’s legacy dominates
the Hellenistic period, whilst the Romans often aspired to equal his
success and power. There is an abundance of representations of
Alexander; consequently it is necessary for accuracy and concision to
focus only on the most famous and influential Hellenistic coinage. This
work will firstly focus on the religious and political aspects of the
coinage, and the developments leading to the cult of Alexander. Whilst
attempting to find the political and cultural biases in the many
different guises of Alexander’s image. For example his many
representations vary drastically from deliberate propaganda to didactic
art and fictional literature, each focusing on elements of Alexander’s
persona, depicting him as a god, a hero, a general, a sage, and finally
as a maniacal madman.

After Alexander III of Macedon’s death
in 323 B.C. his Empire divided between the ‘strongest’ of his
successors.[1] The power vacuum created an unstable warring between many
of Alexander’s closest friends and generals. The ‘Hellenistic’ period
began either after Darius’ death in 330 B.C., or more commonly, after
Alexander had died in 323 B.C. Yet it was not until 306 that Ptolemy,
Seleucus, Cassander and Antigonus took their positions as Greek kings,
rather than satraps, thus assuring the future of the Hellenistic
kingdoms.[2] The Hellenistic period encompasses three centuries of
transitions of ancient civilizations brought successfully under Greek
and Macedonian leadership, whilst paving the way for Roman occupation.
Alexander was fundamental to the formation of Hellenistic kingdoms, not
only as the creator of the Empire, but also because of the related
progress in literature and art, as well as his military and civil
reforms, which were all implemented successfully after his reign. In the
early Hellenistic period Alexander, somewhat oddly, was not exclusively
portrayed as a military leader, rather his youth, exuberance, and
‘divinity’ were often depicted, especially in art. Whilst Ptolemy I
Soter, a general himself, wrote a, now lost, History of Alexander’s
campaigns portraying his military genius, his official art focused on
Alexander’s other youthful, divine, brave characteristics, often
departing from his military expertise. Ptolemy’s actions possibly
suggest, in his capacity as king of Egypt, his wish for his personal,
private, and privileged memories of Alexander to be preserved in a
history, whereas the open, visual elements of his propaganda were
displayed in his statuary, paintings and coinage.

Ptolemy I was
the first of the Hellenistic kings to use his own image on coins. Before
this only images of Alexander, and common mythological scenes, were
ever portrayed. The portrayal of a human on coins was a relatively new
phenomenon, which perhaps places Alexander in league with the gods.
However it was not long after the reforms of Philip and Alexander that
representing the King became ‘well-established motifs in justifying
claims to kingship.’[3] The first Hellenistic coinage minted by Ptolemy
I, as satrap in Egypt, represented Alexander with many divine symbols.
Ptolemy’s first tetradrachm of Alexander appeared from 318 B.C. onwards,
barely five years after Alexander’s death. Margarete Bieber suggests
Ptolemy’s coins ‘heap divine symbols on Alexander’, whereby he is
depicted with the ram’s horns of Ammon, the elephant’s scalp of Dionysus
and finally the aegis of Zeus.[4] Ptolemy accepted his position as
Pharaoh, following Alexander in his Orientalism. Alexander is coupled
with many divinities, ranging from Egyptian to Greek; the images are
possibly varied to suit both Greek and Egyptian audiences. Although
Ptolemy’s implications are unclear, he possibly used the images to
establish Alexander’s divinity, yet he may plausibly have been merely
asserting Alexander’s reverence to the gods. F. Walbank proposes such
coins provide evidence for ‘political pretensions, military ambitions
and… economic policy’, likewise Graham Shipley suggests they ‘validate…
economic and political authority’. Both views fail to recognize any
religious significance, and perhaps focus too greatly on the element of
political propaganda.[5] Nevertheless it is necessary to point out the
relevance of political persuasion in coinage; Alexander’s deeds were
famous, his acts generally admired, and as coinage reached the whole
Greek world it was greatly effective mass media, unlike certain elite
art and literature which bypassed much of the populace.

Alongside
the coinage of Ptolemy, the other Hellenistic kingdoms were also
developing individual Alexander coinage, the most notable of which came
after 301 B.C, issued by Lysimachus in Thrace.[6] Lysimachus’ coins
attempted to legitimize his kingship, as with the other Hellenistic
rulers, yet his coins display questionable imagery. Lysimachus produced
his memorial gold staters and silver tetradrachms after his power was
secured at the battle of Ipsus. These were minted from 297 until his
death in 281. Even though the coins were created over twenty years after
Alexander died, the coins still represent Alexander in his youth, and
most remarkably with the ram’s horns of Ammon. Lysimachus’ use of the
‘Ptolemaic’ Egyptian symbolism suggests his loyalty to Alexander, who
possibly believed himself the son of Ammon. Lysimachus’ lands in Thrace
were too far from Egypt to have any religious relation to Ammon,
therefore it is reasonable to suggest he believed in Alexander’s
divinity, or was merely following the common style, though his
representation of a perfect, heroic, godly Alexander could have been
purely symbolic. Furthermore Lysimachus’ coins convey the ‘qualities’
Alexander typically promoted, in addition to emphasizing his eyes in
order to signify greater intelligence. Thus one can assume Lysimachus
truly honored Alexander, therefore fulfilling his purpose as a friend,
whilst also endorsing his own reign.[7] To place full emphasis on
Alexander’s divinity is inaccurate, but it is also too cynical to
suggest Alexander’s representation was merely for propaganda and
legitimacy of rule.

The original successors of Alexander had good
reason to mint their coins; firstly to validate their claims to
kingship, and secondly to honour their friend and predecessor who had
allowed them their powers. Yet coins depicting Alexander’s face were
commonly minted for over two hundred further years;[8] and certain
memorial coins even continued for centuries after that. The physical
connection to Alexander was lost after the first generation of leaders;
even Demetrius in the Fourth Century had no link to Alexander. Therefore
the political motive and significance for minting Alexander coins was
greatly diminished, if not lost. Thus the coins produced in the
Hellenistic period, and early Roman period were of a different nature.
The most common Alexander coins appeared in Macedon, which is perhaps
understandable considering their heritage. It was not until years of
Roman occupation that the coins eventually stopped, although this was
not due to lack of respect for Alexander, rather the introduction of
standard Roman coinage. Early Roman portraiture perhaps conformed to
Roman values and virtues, and displaying Alexander stood for ‘conquest,
success, achievement’.[9] Although Rome did not use this image to
justify its own power, it was nevertheless a means of expressing
traditional Roman virtues.

The most notable reformation in
Alexander coinage, from 160-80 B.C., appears in his image; his face
retaining, and exuding, youthful qualities, whilst his hair is much
longer than in early portraiture. Alexander portraiture often retained
similar features throughout his contemporary images, as both Macedonian
coins and Roman sculpture depict the young, long curly haired Alexander,
somewhat dissimilar to early Hellenistic images.[10] This, however, was
not the only image represented, as Alexander was also depicted
helmeted, as in late Fourth Century coinage of Seleucus I. Therefore
military representations of Alexander continued, whereas religious
symbolism, including the horns of Ammon, had gradually disappeared;
created only in exact replica of Hellenistic art. The representation of
Alexander as a stable, almost generic, image on coinage had by then
become traditional and, although features changed, the base image and
ideology, remained.

The religious significance of Alexander
coinage is perhaps disputable, yet the cult of Alexander certifies his
deification and places divine significance on him. In 321 B.C.
Alexander’s body was ‘hijacked’ by Ptolemy on its journey to Siwa from
Babylon, and buried in Memphis;[11] Ptolemy II later transported
Alexander’s body to Alexandria and the cult consequently surrounded this
newly glorified tomb. This relocation of Alexander’s tomb illustrates
the possible veneration, and governmental propaganda, associated with
Alexander even in the generations after his death. The deification in
Egypt is perhaps understandable considering his position as a Pharaoh,
as thus he was already considered a god. Alexander in Egypt fulfilled
his position as Pharaoh whilst the Ptolemies ‘accepted’ and even
expressed his divinity in order to assert and verify their own dynasty.
Alexander also received sacrifice and honors, which proves the extent
of worship involved, and implies it was not purely politically
motivated.

It is uncertain whether Ptolemy I endorsed the
official cult in order to venerate Alexander, if he used Alexander’s
name to validate his own later deification by his son, or perhaps to
successfully create his dynasty in the image of Alexander. Richard
Stoneman suggests Ptolemy’s shrewd actions, stating, Alexander’s ‘tomb
became a talisman of Ptolemy’s own kingly rule in Egypt.’[12] Ptolemy’s
beliefs can never be confirmed, yet it is unlikely he thought Alexander,
his former friend, a god. Therefore the cult of Alexander perhaps
revered Alexander as a hero, much like classical hero worship, and a
military genius, but only to the Egyptian populace was the shrine any
more than a piece of propaganda. However Helen Lund, on observing the
importance of the cult to Hellenistic society in its ritual context,
suggests the cult and tomb was not a mere ‘mark of empty flattery’.[13]
Whereas H. Bell suggests Ptolemy ‘relied’ on Alexander’s tomb only for
his propaganda.[14] Realistically it would have been impious for Ptolemy
to have falsely deified Alexander, yet Alexander was not buried in Siwa
as he had wished, which suggests Ptolemy did use Alexander to emphasize
his own power, with mutual political and religious benefits. Arrian in
his Campaigns of Alexander is often scornful of Alexander’s ‘divinity’,
which perhaps suggests his cult was merely a political creation;
although Arrian's stoical view of Alexander is culturally biased. In
literature even Curtius acknowledges Alexander’s memorable tomb, where
‘every mark of respect continues to be paid to his memory and his
name.’[15] Thus when considering Ptolemy’s other religious
representations of Alexander, in both statues and coinage, it is quite
probable that he acknowledged Alexander’s greatness and thus expressed
it as divine, as Alexander had himself endorsed.

Throughout the
history of Alexander there has been an abundance of sources, each
attempting to portray Alexander according to their own cultural and
personal biases. The three foremost mediums of representing Alexander
appear in coinage, art and literature. However there is often a marked
contrast between visual representations of Alexander, where ‘elite’
sculpture is created for the purpose of admiring Alexander, whereas
coinage also remained for economic stability and propaganda alike.
Alexander’s appearance on early Hellenistic coinage represents religious
recognition and piety, depicting Alexander with the ram’s horns of
Ammon, yet the predominant political propaganda, in order to legitimize
kingship, is also highly apparent. Likewise the tomb of Alexander places
divine significance and cultic practice onto his body, whilst still
creating emphasizing Ptolemy’s dynasty and celebrating his kingship. The
cult specifically places divine rites on Alexander, whereas in statuary
there is only a hint of religious practice through his tilted, reverent
head. Alexander was often immortalized and idealized in sculpture and
art, portraying a youthful, handsome and fortunate face. This shows that
he was not only a vital figure in his own time, but also to many later
epochs.

Bibliography

M.M. Austin, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 1981)